Shooting Massacre at Dark Knight Rises Premiere

[Sbrideau]

Also, as just another side note, from the theatre's perspective... it doesn't matter if you do or don't have a concealed weapon's permit. You aren't allowed to bring a firearm into the building. Period. The only people who are allowed to bring a firearm into the building with them are the armed guards who pick up cash deposits, and local authorities/police. Otherwise... if I see you have a handgun tucked into your pants, I will ask you to leave. If you show you have a concealed weapon's permit, I will ask you to leave. If you don't comply, I will call the police.

 

:thumbup:

 

Rules like this are asinine. If you confront someone who has a gun for malicious purposes, he's just going to shoot you and continue with what he was doing. But by preventing people who own guns legally for protection from carrying them in, you're removing a deterrent or protective force from the premises. Exactly the same goes for those "no guns within x distance of a school" rules. Someone who wants to shoot up a school is not going to heed the rule, and anyone who might otherwise have a gun who could stop the shooter is going to obey that rule.

 

You're right that it doesn't help with shootings like this at all. It's only useful for limiting the damage that someone might do if a conflict/argument escalates, not if he planned to do anything with the weapon beforehand.

 

 

The best way is still not to give guns into private people's hands at all imo, the problem is just that in a country like the USA, where weapons are so prevalent, it's going to take a while until enough firearms are actually secured for this law to work properly.

 

Of course. But those are pretty rare imo...

 

And yeah, complete gun control is the only solution, but I can't see it ever being feasible in north america.

 

Gun control wouldn't work because there's still illegal ways to get guns.

[Jonanananas]

-snip-

 

And yeah, complete gun control is the only solution, but I can't see it ever being feasible in north america.

 

Gun control wouldn't work because there's still illegal ways to get guns.

 

There are illegal ways to get guns here too. Yet I would claim that gun control works relatively well here. We aren't talking about how to prevent gun crimes of organized criminals but how to prevent access for these kind of people who go on such a shooting spree. And gun control can work there. We've relatively recently had two rampages without guns with no one being killed. Those rampages with guns usually took a heavy toll - and the shooters got the guns from their parents or relatives, not from some illegal source.

 

And I think gun control is feasible for america as well. The problem is just that it will take too long to work, and most people in the period in between will think it doesn't work at all, which would result in such a law being abolished again.

[Sir_Squab]

Also, as just another side note, from the theatre's perspective... it doesn't matter if you do or don't have a concealed weapon's permit. You aren't allowed to bring a firearm into the building. Period. The only people who are allowed to bring a firearm into the building with them are the armed guards who pick up cash deposits, and local authorities/police. Otherwise... if I see you have a handgun tucked into your pants, I will ask you to leave. If you show you have a concealed weapon's permit, I will ask you to leave. If you don't comply, I will call the police.

 

:thumbup:

 

Rules like this are asinine. If you confront someone who has a gun for malicious purposes, he's just going to shoot you and continue with what he was doing. But by preventing people who own guns legally for protection from carrying them in, you're removing a deterrent or protective force from the premises. Exactly the same goes for those "no guns within x distance of a school" rules. Someone who wants to shoot up a school is not going to heed the rule, and anyone who might otherwise have a gun who could stop the shooter is going to obey that rule.

 

You're right that it doesn't help with shootings like this at all. It's only useful for limiting the damage that someone might do if a conflict/argument escalates, not if he planned to do anything with the weapon beforehand.

 

 

The best way is still not to give guns into private people's hands at all imo, the problem is just that in a country like the USA, where weapons are so prevalent, it's going to take a while until enough firearms are actually secured for this law to work properly.

 

Of course. But those are pretty rare imo...

 

And yeah, complete gun control is the only solution, but I can't see it ever being feasible in north america.

 

Gun control wouldn't work because there's still illegal ways to get guns.

:wall:

[Serpent Eye]

 

Also, as just another side note, from the theatre's perspective... it doesn't matter if you do or don't have a concealed weapon's permit. You aren't allowed to bring a firearm into the building. Period. The only people who are allowed to bring a firearm into the building with them are the armed guards who pick up cash deposits, and local authorities/police. Otherwise... if I see you have a handgun tucked into your pants, I will ask you to leave. If you show you have a concealed weapon's permit, I will ask you to leave. If you don't comply, I will call the police.

 

:thumbup:

 

Rules like this are asinine. If you confront someone who has a gun for malicious purposes, he's just going to shoot you and continue with what he was doing. But by preventing people who own guns legally for protection from carrying them in, you're removing a deterrent or protective force from the premises. Exactly the same goes for those "no guns within x distance of a school" rules. Someone who wants to shoot up a school is not going to heed the rule, and anyone who might otherwise have a gun who could stop the shooter is going to obey that rule.

 

Well, you'd have to speak to the Powers That Be at my company about that. :-P I didn't create the policy, I just enforce it.

 

It doesn't matter if you are legally allowed to carry the weapon or not - I have the right to refuse service to ANYONE, for any reason.

 

Besides... I'm sure there are people in movie theatres with concealed weapons quite often, and I'm none the wiser. But if you are careless enough to let your concealed weapon be VISIBLE to the public... I'm going to see it and ask you to leave.

 

It doesn't matter if you carry it for protection or could prevent something from happening... my other customers are going to say, "HOLY SHIT THAT GUY HAS A GUN!"

[obfuscator]

 

Well, you'd have to speak to the Powers That Be at my company about that. :-P I didn't create the policy, I just enforce it.

 

It doesn't matter if you are legally allowed to carry the weapon or not - I have the right to refuse service to ANYONE, for any reason.

Of course, not blaming you. Just saying it's a stupid rule.

 

Besides... I'm sure there are people in movie theatres with concealed weapons quite often, and I'm none the wiser. But if you are careless enough to let your concealed weapon be VISIBLE to the public... I'm going to see it and ask you to leave.

 

It doesn't matter if you carry it for protection or could prevent something from happening... my other customers are going to say, "HOLY SHIT THAT GUY HAS A GUN!"

 

Then people are being stupid. I don't immediately assume just because someone has fists that they're going to punch me, same goes for a gun.

[Sir_Squab]

 

Well, you'd have to speak to the Powers That Be at my company about that. :razz: I didn't create the policy, I just enforce it.

 

It doesn't matter if you are legally allowed to carry the weapon or not - I have the right to refuse service to ANYONE, for any reason.

Of course, not blaming you. Just saying it's a stupid rule.

 

Besides... I'm sure there are people in movie theatres with concealed weapons quite often, and I'm none the wiser. But if you are careless enough to let your concealed weapon be VISIBLE to the public... I'm going to see it and ask you to leave.

 

It doesn't matter if you carry it for protection or could prevent something from happening... my other customers are going to say, "HOLY SHIT THAT GUY HAS A GUN!"

 

Then people are being stupid. I don't immediately assume just because someone has fists that they're going to punch me, same goes for a gun.

 

If people had rational reactions to this sort of thing, the media wouldn't report killings like this in a way that encourages future killings. Although humans are capable of rational thought and logic, it's not the default thought process used by a large portion of the human race a lot of the time. Possibly the majority of the human race.

[Serpent Eye]

Well, people generally don't go on a rampage and kill 12 people (and injure 59) with their fists.

 

Y_guy, you might be comfortable with seeing someone carrying a gun, but I'm sure you realise that that same sentiment doesn't apply to everyone. Especially given the surroundings. If I was at some bar or cattle ranch in Texas, I might not be so worried about seeing someone with a gun. But if I were shopping at the mall or was watching a movie at the theatre, it might worry me.

[obfuscator]

The same sentiment should apply to everyone. If you're scared of someone just because they have a gun, you're stereotyping, simple as that.

[Jonanananas]

The same sentiment should apply to everyone. If you're scared of someone just because they have a gun, you're stereotyping, simple as that.

 

That depends on where you live. If you never see anyone but police officers carry guns, some civilian carrying a gun will *and should* make you suspicious. It's an entirely different case when carrying guns is commonplace ofc.

[obfuscator]

I live in Canada...you aren't allowed to carry guns in public. And on the very rare occasions I've seen someone other than a police officer carrying a gun it hasn't bothered me in the slightest.

[Serpent Eye]

The same sentiment should apply to everyone. If you're scared of someone just because they have a gun, you're stereotyping, simple as that.

 

No... it shouldn't. You can't make a statement about your own personal feelings and then say everyone else should feel the same way as you because your way is the right way. Your way is your way and not mine.

 

You have every right to be comfortable seeing someone walking around with a gun - I respect that as your opinion and I won't tell you that you are wrong. I would just expect the same in kind.

 

So I respectfully agree to disagree with you on this point. :-P

 

Edit: For what it's worth, I don't judge people too harshly for owning guns. While I don't ever plan on owning one, I have held a few and have even been shooting a few times. A lot of people in my family own guns, and my best friend keeps a loaded gun in his bedroom sitting out in the open. I don't think any less of my family or friend... but I would still be concerned if my friend walked into the movie theatre with his gun. :-P

[Lord Paul]

In my opinion, we actually should feel safer if we see a civilian openly bearing arms. Chances are they won't be up to no good if they aren't trying to hide it.

(yes, I used 3 negatives in that last sentence.)

 

Luckily for me, Louisiana allows open carry. Inb4 backwards, swamp people jokes. :P

[Riku3220]

In this situation, I truly believe that if anyone else had a gun on them, they would have created a bigger mess. A dark room filled with smoke (which may or may not have been tear gas) and panicking people is not the time to be Rambo.

[obfuscator]

 

No... it shouldn't. You can't make a statement about your own personal feelings and then say everyone else should feel the same way as you because your way is the right way. Your way is your way and not mine.

You have every right to be comfortable seeing someone walking around with a gun - I respect that as your opinion and I won't tell you that you are wrong. I would just expect the same in kind.

 

So I respectfully agree to disagree with you on this point. :-P

 

Edit: For what it's worth, I don't judge people too harshly for owning guns. While I don't ever plan on owning one, I have held a few and have even been shooting a few times. A lot of people in my family own guns, and my best friend keeps a loaded gun in his bedroom sitting out in the open. I don't think any less of my family or friend... but I would still be concerned if my friend walked into the movie theatre with his gun. :-P

 

My point is that if you immediately are afraid of someone carrying a gun, that's simply stereotyping...which is not tolerated in most other scenarios.

[Alg]

Then people are being stupid. I don't immediately assume just because someone has fists that they're going to punch me, same goes for a gun.

It makes sense for people to be cautious around weapons though, especially weapons in the hands of strangers. More so after something like this.

[obfuscator]

Caution and genuine paranoia are quite different.

[Alg]

True.

[jasignhagj]

Well, people generally don't go on a rampage and kill 12 people (and injure 59) with their fists.

 

People generally don't go on shooting rampages with their gun either.

[Danqazmlp]

I don't think it's stereotyping at all to be afraid and suspicious of somebody who is carrying a gun. There is no need whatsoever, not at all, not one minuscule good reason to be carrying a gun in public, so when you do, people will think the worst. We don't live in the wild west, we live in a civilised society, and relaxed gun laws are the one thing keeping the danger up at the moment.

[lordkafei]

Exactly, it's the perfect "fish in a barrel" situation. The place is packed, it's dark, people's attention is focused on something else, there's no open space to run, only a few exits.

And which law abiding citizen feels the need to bring a weapon to a movie? I bet if you polled everyone in the auditorium, you'd find that the most dangerous thing in there was a pocket knife.

 

As I understand it, this theater chain does not honor CCW permits.

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/07/robert-farago/cinemark-theaters-no-legal-firearms-allowed/

 

Perhaps they will rethink this in light of this “fish in a barrel” situation created by their own policies.

[obfuscator]

I don't think it's stereotyping at all to be afraid and suspicious of somebody who is carrying a gun. There is no need whatsoever, not at all, not one minuscule good reason to be carrying a gun in public, so when you do, people will think the worst. We don't live in the wild west, we live in a civilised society, and relaxed gun laws are the one thing keeping the danger up at the moment.

How about stopping a crazed gunman? That seems like a pretty good reason to me.

If even one person in that theatre had a gun there would probably be 1\5 of the casualties that there actually were.

[Riku3220]

I don't think it's stereotyping at all to be afraid and suspicious of somebody who is carrying a gun. There is no need whatsoever, not at all, not one minuscule good reason to be carrying a gun in public, so when you do, people will think the worst. We don't live in the wild west, we live in a civilised society, and relaxed gun laws are the one thing keeping the danger up at the moment.

How about stopping a crazed gunman? That seems like a pretty good reason to me.

If even one person in that theatre had a gun there would probably be 1\5 of the casualties that there actually were.

Or double the casualties. In a dark room filled with smoke and panicking people the hero would have almost certainly hit another person.

[sarg1010]

I don't think it's stereotyping at all to be afraid and suspicious of somebody who is carrying a gun. There is no need whatsoever, not at all, not one minuscule good reason to be carrying a gun in public, so when you do, people will think the worst. We don't live in the wild west, we live in a civilised society, and relaxed gun laws are the one thing keeping the danger up at the moment.

How about stopping a crazed gunman? That seems like a pretty good reason to me.

If even one person in that theatre had a gun there would probably be 1\5 of the casualties that there actually were.

Or double the casualties. In a dark room filled with smoke and panicking people the hero would have almost certainly hit another person.

 

I'll jump in here and say that, while that is quite certainly possible, chances are the civilian with the gun would be trained enough to know not to shoot anyone that is cowering on the floor/running away/not holding an assault rifle. Unless they are a complete idiot and decide to start shooting randomly, chances are not too many people would actually get hurt by another person having a gun, who is trying to stop the real "threat".

 

This is all baring random circumstances of course, such as illegally owning said gun/not being trained/being shot by the "threat"/etc.

[Alg]

This is all baring random circumstances of course, such as illegally owning said gun/not being trained/being shot by the "threat"/etc.

Or if they panic. As has been mentioned previously, they're being shot at in a dark, crowded room. It'll take a bit more than gun training to stay calm under those circumstances.

[champion]

I don't think it's stereotyping at all to be afraid and suspicious of somebody who is carrying a gun. There is no need whatsoever, not at all, not one minuscule good reason to be carrying a gun in public, so when you do, people will think the worst. We don't live in the wild west, we live in a civilised society, and relaxed gun laws are the one thing keeping the danger up at the moment.

How about stopping a crazed gunman? That seems like a pretty good reason to me.

If even one person in that theatre had a gun there would probably be 1\5 of the casualties that there actually were.

 

That's funny you mention that, because it's entirely untrue: http://www.slate.com...e_the_nra_.html

 

Holmes’ outfit blew these jokers away. He wore a

. He was so well equipped that if anyone in that theater had tried what the National Rifle Association recommends—drawing a firearm to stop the carnage—that person would have been dead meat. Holmes didn’t just kill a dozen people. He killed the NRA’s answer to gun violence.